Illegal Immigrants Don't Have the Constitutional Right to Own Firearms

[MA_Shooter]

(AP)- A federal appeals court says illegal immigrants don’t have a right to own firearms under the U.S. Constitution.

Emmanuel Huitron-Guizar of Wyoming pleaded guilty to being an illegal immigrant in possession of firearms after his arrest last year. He was ordered held by immigration authorities at the Natrona County Detention Center in Wyoming.

An attorney for Huitron-Guizar appealed the case, saying illegal immigrants are not excluded from possessing firearms like felons and people who are mentally ill, and should have the same rights as U.S. citizens to buy a gun for hunting and protection.

The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Monday that illegal immigrants have only limited protection under the Constitution.

Huitron-Guizar’s attorney, Ronald Pretty of Cheyenne, Wyo., says he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Link

 

[Boris]

Huitron-Guizar’s attorney, Ronald Pretty of Cheyenne, Wyo., says he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Link

what a ****ing waste, like USSC has nothing better to do. Deport shithead home.

 

[Business]

An attorney for Huitron-Guizar appealed the case, saying illegal immigrants are not excluded from possessing firearms like felons and people who are mentally ill, and should have the same rights as U.S. citizens to buy a gun for hunting and protection.

Shut up and get the hell out! are you kidding me? If you like what our country has to offer i.e our constitutional rights...BECOME A CITIZEN!

 

[el duderino]

Why was he even in court? Illegal alien: If he didnt kill somebody, deport his ass no questions asked.

 

[loki32687]

Why was he even in court? Illegal alien: If he didnt kill somebody, deport his ass no questions asked.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[mark056]

I'm always very amused by the indignation of those who get their drawers in a snit over the whole bit about illegal aliens not having constitutional rights. On the surface it all sounds very reasonable. Then however, some of these self-same individuals get all bent out of shape when somebody tries to abridge their 2A rights, saying it isn't about the constitution, it is all about their God-given natural right . To me, it smacks of hypocrisy...then of course some fella (a learned scholar of Wikipedia and internet forums) will wade in and say "Well it's different...sorta like yelling fire in a crowded theater, abridges the right to free speech which is also considered by many to be God given natural right . But then some other fella will get his drawers in a snit when people suggest that convicted felons 2A rights be "restored"...now how the heck can any man created law or court, abridge a natural right? Now sure, I get the idea that if someone abuses their right, such as murdering someone with a firearm, they have violated that right (just like falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater) but if Joe Illegal is walking down the street, it seems to me philosophically, that he has just as much of a natural right to carry a firearm and be able to protect himself as the next fella.

I love it how we interchange natural rights with constitutional rights all the time on this forum, and hide behind one or the other when it suits our purposes. Some of you fellas are somethin' else

 

[StevieP]

if Joe Illegal is walking down the street, it seems to me philosophically, that he has just as much of a natural right to carry a firearm and be able to protect himself as the next fella.

He does. In the country he came from. If he wants all the rights and privileges of an American citizen, then take the necessary steps to become one. Otherwise, he shouldn't be "walking down the street" in any American city in the first place.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

Shut up and get the hell out! are you kidding me? If you like what our country has to offer i.e our constitutional rights...BECOME A CITIZEN!

Constitutional Rights don't end at the border. The document also doesn't 'give' you anything. Everyone has those rights be they Mexican, American, or German.

 

[ochmude]

I'm always very amused by the indignation of those who get their drawers in a snit over the whole bit about illegal aliens not having constitutional rights. On the surface it all sounds very reasonable. Then however, some of these self-same individuals get all bent out of shape when somebody tries to abridge their 2A rights, saying it isn't about the constitution, it is all about their God-given natural right . To me, it smacks of hypocrisy...then of course some fella (a learned scholar of Wikipedia and internet forums) will wade in and say "Well it's different...sorta like yelling fire in a crowded theater, abridges the right to free speech which is also considered by many to be God given natural right . But then some other fella will get his drawers in a snit when people suggest that convicted felons 2A rights be "restored"...now how the heck can any man created law or court, abridge a natural right? Now sure, I get the idea that if someone abuses their right, such as murdering someone with a firearm, they have violated that right (just like falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater) but if Joe Illegal is walking down the street, it seems to me philosophically, that he has just as much of a natural right to carry a firearm and be able to protect himself as the next fella.

I love it how we interchange natural rights with constitutional rights all the time on this forum, and hide behind one or the other when it suits our purposes. Some of you fellas are somethin' else

Mark, I agree with you completely. Everyone that says illegals shouldn't be able to own guns is hurting the pro-2A cause. What you're essentially doing is saying that guns are special and need special consideration. Illegals can buy hammers and drills and any other tools. If you raise a stink about them buying guns you're casting guns in the same light that the anti's do. Guns are tools, period. Make special laws about them, even for illegals, and you set a harmful precedent.

 

[terraformer]

Decision.
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-8051.pdf

 

[ochmude]

He's only entitled to American privileges if he becomes a citizen. He still has his natural rights, including the ability to keep and bear arms.

Exactly. He shouldn't be able to vote, run for office, etc. but the right to keep and bear arms is God-given and knows no borders.

 

[terraformer]

Syllabus of facts.

Mr. Huitron-Guizar was born in Mexico and brought to Wyoming at age three. In March 2011, officers executed a warrant on his home and discovered three firearms—a 7.62x39mm rifle, a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, and a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol. They learned from his sister that Mr. Huitron-Guizar, now 24 years old, was, unlike her, not a U.S. citizen. The district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds that § 922(g)(5) unconstitutionally abridges the right to bear arms as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (which applies to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause). The district court also declined to apply a lower “sporting purposes” base offense level, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2), or to depart or vary downward based upon Mr. Huitron-Guizar’s age and allegations of governmental misconduct.

 

[mark056]

He does. In the country he came from. If he wants all the rights and privileges of an American citizen, then take the necessary steps to become one. Otherwise, he shouldn't be "walking down the street" in any American city in the first place.

Oh yeah...now I get it...natural rights are determined by national boundaries, so does this mean that God recognizes the sovereignty of each country? So I guess here in Massachusetts Joe Legal can walk down the stret as long as he has an unrestricted LTC, and it's okay to deprive Mr Out of Stater his right to carry because he is not a legal resident of Massachusetts. I think I get it now..it's the laws made by men that always trump natural rights so we are first and foremost a nation of laws, not rights...so our totally screwed up licensing system here is totally justified.

Now I suppose ya could say that with rights come responsibilities and one of those responsibilities means total compliance with the law. I suppose I need to remember that the next time I run a stop sign, or speed, Guess, since I am doing something illegal, I better whiz over to my local police station, turn in my LTC (which is an abridgement of my natural right to begin with) cuz I'm breaking the law and have abrogated one of my natural rights. Heck, maybe I better turn in my driver's license too, cuz it is a privilege and not a right (most probably anyway) and I have violated my privilege. Your post kinda implies that maybe even the right to carry a firearm or a weapon isn't really a right but a privilege...confusing eh?

 

[Metalhead]

Take the gun....toss him out on his ass, problem solved.

 

[hurley431]

Decision.
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-8051.pdf

If the man was brought to the U.S. at age three... and his sister was a U.S. citizen; why did he not apply for his citizenship? I've had the honor of being a witness to about ten citizenship ceremonies... I don't understand why people with ample time and means don't follow the proper path's to citizenship; and, I have no sympathy for them.

As far as firearms are concerned... well, some people here hold their "principles" differently depending upon who you are, just saying. If you believe the 2A to be a natural right, you can't cry about an illegal having firearms, and should be outraged that he was convicted of a crime for it.

 

[terraformer]

If the man was brought to the U.S. at age three... and his sister was a U.S. citizen; why did he not apply for his citizenship? I've had the honor of being a witness to about ten citizenship ceremonies... I don't understand why people with ample time and means don't follow the proper path's to citizenship; and, I have no sympathy for them.

Actually, if she was 21, he didn't have a chance to follow proper procedure on admittance to the US. She has to be 25 now. Congress has been pushing the date up and up over the years. Even if they didn't change the date a few years ago, the old age was 21 and if she was 20, he would have been precluded for as many months as it would have taken.

As far as firearms are concerned... well, some people here hold their "principles" differently depending upon who you are, just saying. If you believe the 2A to be a natural right, you can't cry about an illegal having firearms, and should be outraged that he was convicted of a crime for it.

I agree with you here. This kid's only crime was getting made for an illegal by a local yokel. He committed no other crime besides being illegal in this country. I hope this goes to SCOTUS. I want to see what they have to say. I don't think he should have been convicted of this.

 

[bill o]

An illegal immigrant owning a gun concerns me as much as an illegal owning a pack of gum.

 

[hurley431]

Actually, if she was 21, he didn't have a chance to follow proper procedure on admittance to the US. She has to be 25 now. Congress has been pushing the date up and up over the years. Even if they didn't change the date a few years ago, the old age was 21 and if she was 20, he would have been precluded for as many months as it would have taken.

I didn't know that. I learn something new everyday on this site.

 

[terraformer]

I didn't know that. I learn something new everyday on this site.

No worries. That I even know it is random.

 

[dustoff22]

What is it about "illegal" that seems not to be understood? If someone or something is "illegal" he/she/it is breaking the law from which the entitlement is deportation plain and simple.

 

[el duderino]

I agree with you here. This kid's only crime was getting made for an illegal by a local yokel. He committed no other crime besides being illegal in this country. I hope this goes to SCOTUS. I want to see what they have to say. I don't think he should have been convicted of this.

Agreed, except there shouldnt even be a debate about that, he should have been deported within days of being discovered without wasting time and money on a court case over a moot point. They need to stop wasting time charging illegals with anything short of murder, rape and minimal other heinous crimes and deport them immediately.

 

[TimMcG74]

I agree that illegal aliens brought here as children should enjoy some constitutional protections, as those protections are, for the most part, clearly enumerated as natural rights. However, does this case provide any relief to those who have been harmed the most by anti-2A legislation? There are many American citizens who have been unjustly robbed of their 2A rights. Does it not make more sense to focus on that issue, before we defend illegal immigrants?

 

[Lip]

Exactly. He shouldn't be able to vote, run for office, etc. but the right to keep and bear arms is God-given and knows no borders.

An illegal alien is no different than the thug breaking in your house. If they must be armed treat them as such. Armed criminals.

 

[Lip]

An illegal immigrant owning a gun concerns me as much as an illegal owning a pack of gum.

Me too, treat them as any other burglar in your house.

 

[gunclinger]

Look at it another way...you could also describe 10-20 million illegal aliens in your country, armed, as "an invading army".

 

[terraformer]

I agree that illegal aliens brought here as children should enjoy some constitutional protections, as those protections are, for the most part, clearly enumerated as natural rights. However, does this case provide any relief to those who have been harmed the most by anti-2A legislation? There are many American citizens who have been unjustly robbed of their 2A rights. Does it not make more sense to focus on that issue, before we defend illegal immigrants?

Possibly from one strategic perspective, but maybe another is this is just the case to drive home the point that mallum prohibitum laws banning possession by people who have not shown to be violent or dangerous are are unconstitutional and that those who have no history of violence are covered by the right. Imagine the justices that come out for this one...

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

An illegal alien is no different than the thug breaking in your house. If they must be armed treat them as such. Armed criminals.

Actually there is a significant difference.

One is violating private property rights and is (potentially) an immediate and present danger.

The other is someone who is in public but doesn't have his 'papers' in order.

 

[ochmude]

An illegal alien is no different than the thug breaking in your house. If they must be armed treat them as such. Armed criminals.

Oh I assure you, most illegals are much different from the thug breaking into your house. I understand your reaction, but most of them aren't thugs.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I agree with the court. Extending second amendment rights will imply all constitutional rights are applicable. I also agree - illegal aliens should be deported - no questions asked - no trial.

 

[TimMcG74]

Possibly from one strategic perspective, but maybe another is this is just the case to drive home the point that mallum prohibitum laws banning possession by people who have not shown to be violent or dangerous are are unconstitutional and that those who have no history of violence are covered by the right. Imagine the justices that come out for this one...

I suppose I can see that point.